Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. News & Views
  2. When are randomised...
  3. When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise
Analysis

When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise

BMJ 2007; 334 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39070.527986.68 (Published 15 February 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;334:349

Data supplement

  • References

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Related articles

See more

Cited by...

  • Feasibility of comparing medical management and surgery (with neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) with medical management alone in people with symptomatic brain cavernoma - protocol for the Cavernomas: A Randomised Effectiveness (CARE) pilot trial
  • Prescribing safe supply: ethical considerations for clinicians
  • Effects of discontinuation of levothyroxine treatment in older adults: protocol for a self-controlled trial
  • When I use a word . . . . Too much healthcare--observational studies
  • Prescribing safe supply: ethical considerations for clinicians
  • Targeting cardiac myocyte Na+-K+ pump function with {beta}3 adrenergic agonist in rabbits and patients with severe congestive heart failure
  • Stereotactic radiosurgery for cerebral cavernous malformations: A systematic review
  • Most medical practices are not parachutes: a citation analysis of practices felt by biomedical authors to be analogous to parachutes
  • Raising the Bar: Further Improvement is Required to Make More Test Accuracy Research Fit for Decision-making
  • Very large treatment effects in randomised trials as an empirical marker to indicate whether subsequent trials are necessary: meta-epidemiological assessment
  • Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999-2014
  • Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and the preterm infant: a case study in developmentally sensitive nutrient needs in the United States
  • Do "Evidence-Based Recommendations" Need to Reveal the Evidence? Minimal Criteria Supporting an "Evidence Claim"
  • Should surgical training include involvement in a clinical trial?
  • Antiplatelet Therapy May Be Continued After Intracerebral Hemorrhage
  • Pulmonary metastasectomy: what is the practice and where is the evidence for effectiveness?
  • Outcome after surgical or conservative management of cerebral cavernous malformations
  • The OCTET trial, community treatment orders and evidence-based practice
  • Level 1 EBM Expedited Review
  • Response to 'Position statement on ethics, equipoise and research on charged particle therapy'
  • Position statement on ethics, equipoise and research on charged particle radiation therapy
  • Basic learning concepts in EBM: the bidimentional hierarchy of evidence
  • IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages
  • Efficacy and safety of the "mothers kiss" technique: a systematic review of case reports and case series
  • Pulmonary metastasectomy for sarcoma: a systematic review of reported outcomes in the context of Thames Cancer Registry data
  • Guidelines should reflect all knowledge, not just clinical trials
  • Clotting factor concentrate switching and inhibitor development in hemophilia A
  • Counterpoint: Enough Evidence to Treat? The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Guidelines
  • A Policy for Science
  • To RCT or not to RCT: deciding when 'more evidence is needed' for public health policy and practice
  • What does randomisation achieve?
  • External aortic root support: NICE guidance
  • LUCADA: a valuable resource but there are questions it cannot answer
  • Why do the results of randomised and observational studies differ?
  • Heterogeneity: we can't live with it, and we can't live without it
  • Systems of service: reflections on the moral foundations of improvement
  • Can evidence-based medicine and clinical quality improvement learn from each other?
  • Beam me up Scotty! Impact of personal wireless communication devices in the emergency department
  • Do patients with angina alone have a more benign prognosis than patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation or both? Findings from a community cohort study
  • Improving patient safety in paediatrics and child health
  • Proton Therapy Should Be Tested in Randomized Trials
  • What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians?
  • Too high a pedestal
  • Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
  • More than high standards needed
  • The design and assessment of prospective randomised, controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery
  • Beware the "Texas sharp shooter" in rate ratios of progression
  • The urge to sprinkle statistics is irresistible
  • Litigating the Science of Breast Cancer Treatment
Back to top